The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Interestingly to say politically correct is not politically correct!
Politically correct terms are thing like saying ìvertically challengedî instead of short, or ìcerebrally challengedî instead of stupid.
You get the idea. Now are games politically correct? The names are (in most cases) but the content is often not politically correct. Now as soon as you read that you will think that non politically correct games are games like shooting games. Well thatís not entirely true. If you know, Harry Potter books have been banned in several states in the USA because they have talk of ìevilî and ìwizardsî things that law abiding church goers should not even read about.
Yet itís made up. There is no real magic or Hogwarts. So why do people fuss? Well I believe its because they think that It could be a ìbadî influence on clildren. But moving back to games.
Now I know for a fact that a few options were removed from Perfect Dark because they were deemed too ìviolentî.
This was done mainly for the Americans (I believe) because there have been so many cases of children killing classmates and the parents believe this is caused by computer games. They then sue games manufacturers so the manufacturers have to then put high ratings (18) they can say there was warning on the game that it was not for children under that age. The only problem is people would argue that it wasnít visible so the only solution to that would be to plaster the 18 symbol all over the packaging and game.
Interestingly no one has yet thought of banning guns. Or if they have they have been stopped by the NRA (national rifle association) Who has tried suing the gun runners? Well the latter would be a bad idea I imagine. A terminally bad Idea.
Yet it is blamed on games. Parents say their kids become violent monsters when they play violent games . Now in some cases this may be true but when I play perfect dark I do so to relieve anger. It works. If I get bugged by something I stick 8 meat sims in and put one hit kills on and just go mad and shoot loads then feel much better. But other people are not neceserly like me.
Now this does, however, explain why Nintendo have put a great deal of money into games like Pokemon, Mario and Zelda. It would be very hard for people to find something offensive or violent in them. This means that if anyone tried to sue over a Pokemon game they would be very likely to lose.
Conkers Bad Fur day is another interesting game. Instead of keeping the furry squirrel image they made him a drunk womanizer. Now the game is rated 18 for obvious reasons but I canít imagine anyone going on a shooting spree after playing it.
So game manufactures get sued for having a shooting game in which you shoot people.
Thatís the problem. In Turok 2 you can blow holes in monsters but to my knowledge it is only a 15. PD got rated 18 because you shot people. Or at least characters recognizable as human (apart from the Skedar and Maians).
So if you made an incredibly violent game but only shot monster type things. I would be surprised if it got rated over 18.
So what is the point of rating?
Well I canít imagine it is done to stop younger children playing these games. I was 14 when I bought PD (my mum actually had to pay for it cos they wouldnít sell to me).
My 10 year old brother play it. Now the rating of 18 is for 2 reasons.
1. The blood and violence. Like an 18 rated movie.
2. The difficulty. I have done 3 levels on perfect Agent. I have done all on secret and agent but I just canít do most of them on perfect. Is this anything to do with the violence? No its to do with the way you think and your reflex speed. At 18 you are probably going to be much better at games because you can think how to do them more effectively.
Red Alert 1 was rated 18 or at least not for people under 18. I never managed to complete it on the easy setting. I think this is because it is designed for older people and the things you have to do are harder for younger children to work out. I completed Red Alert 2 on all settings as both allies and soviets. Now its rated 15 which is more appropriate for me.
I think it is possible that these rating are more accurate that we think.
So are shooting games morally or politically correct? Well the answer is no because you are shooting humans. Not real people though. Game characters. Bits of data, squares and polygons. None of the people are REAL. You have to be careful though that you donít translate the game reality into this reality.
So blaming societies problems on games is really a bit unfair. Game manufacturers are made into scape goats.
In the USA people say ìoh my son played this really bad game and when he got mad he went into school and shot a load of peopleî (not in those precise words).
Do they think ìwhy donít we get rid of the guns?î. No, instead everyone else is blamed.
In my opinion the only difference games have made on society has been to keep children inside more and for people to get fatter. But in England there is not much to go outside for. We have hardly any sun but a lot of rain and wind and cold temperatures.
But look on the bright side. We all get a lot of entertainment out of games and you can still be healthy and play games. You just need to go outside when you arenít playing.
Anyway, as always, thank you for reading.
Politically correct terms are thing like saying ìvertically challengedî instead of short, or ìcerebrally challengedî instead of stupid.
You get the idea. Now are games politically correct? The names are (in most cases) but the content is often not politically correct. Now as soon as you read that you will think that non politically correct games are games like shooting games. Well thatís not entirely true. If you know, Harry Potter books have been banned in several states in the USA because they have talk of ìevilî and ìwizardsî things that law abiding church goers should not even read about.
Yet itís made up. There is no real magic or Hogwarts. So why do people fuss? Well I believe its because they think that It could be a ìbadî influence on clildren. But moving back to games.
Now I know for a fact that a few options were removed from Perfect Dark because they were deemed too ìviolentî.
This was done mainly for the Americans (I believe) because there have been so many cases of children killing classmates and the parents believe this is caused by computer games. They then sue games manufacturers so the manufacturers have to then put high ratings (18) they can say there was warning on the game that it was not for children under that age. The only problem is people would argue that it wasnít visible so the only solution to that would be to plaster the 18 symbol all over the packaging and game.
Interestingly no one has yet thought of banning guns. Or if they have they have been stopped by the NRA (national rifle association) Who has tried suing the gun runners? Well the latter would be a bad idea I imagine. A terminally bad Idea.
Yet it is blamed on games. Parents say their kids become violent monsters when they play violent games . Now in some cases this may be true but when I play perfect dark I do so to relieve anger. It works. If I get bugged by something I stick 8 meat sims in and put one hit kills on and just go mad and shoot loads then feel much better. But other people are not neceserly like me.
Now this does, however, explain why Nintendo have put a great deal of money into games like Pokemon, Mario and Zelda. It would be very hard for people to find something offensive or violent in them. This means that if anyone tried to sue over a Pokemon game they would be very likely to lose.
Conkers Bad Fur day is another interesting game. Instead of keeping the furry squirrel image they made him a drunk womanizer. Now the game is rated 18 for obvious reasons but I canít imagine anyone going on a shooting spree after playing it.
So game manufactures get sued for having a shooting game in which you shoot people.
Thatís the problem. In Turok 2 you can blow holes in monsters but to my knowledge it is only a 15. PD got rated 18 because you shot people. Or at least characters recognizable as human (apart from the Skedar and Maians).
So if you made an incredibly violent game but only shot monster type things. I would be surprised if it got rated over 18.
So what is the point of rating?
Well I canít imagine it is done to stop younger children playing these games. I was 14 when I bought PD (my mum actually had to pay for it cos they wouldnít sell to me).
My 10 year old brother play it. Now the rating of 18 is for 2 reasons.
1. The blood and violence. Like an 18 rated movie.
2. The difficulty. I have done 3 levels on perfect Agent. I have done all on secret and agent but I just canít do most of them on perfect. Is this anything to do with the violence? No its to do with the way you think and your reflex speed. At 18 you are probably going to be much better at games because you can think how to do them more effectively.
Red Alert 1 was rated 18 or at least not for people under 18. I never managed to complete it on the easy setting. I think this is because it is designed for older people and the things you have to do are harder for younger children to work out. I completed Red Alert 2 on all settings as both allies and soviets. Now its rated 15 which is more appropriate for me.
I think it is possible that these rating are more accurate that we think.
So are shooting games morally or politically correct? Well the answer is no because you are shooting humans. Not real people though. Game characters. Bits of data, squares and polygons. None of the people are REAL. You have to be careful though that you donít translate the game reality into this reality.
So blaming societies problems on games is really a bit unfair. Game manufacturers are made into scape goats.
In the USA people say ìoh my son played this really bad game and when he got mad he went into school and shot a load of peopleî (not in those precise words).
Do they think ìwhy donít we get rid of the guns?î. No, instead everyone else is blamed.
In my opinion the only difference games have made on society has been to keep children inside more and for people to get fatter. But in England there is not much to go outside for. We have hardly any sun but a lot of rain and wind and cold temperatures.
But look on the bright side. We all get a lot of entertainment out of games and you can still be healthy and play games. You just need to go outside when you arenít playing.
Anyway, as always, thank you for reading.
true.
Well it was another late night thing LOl :-)
Well it was another late night thing LOl :-)
I can't imagine a child shooting someone after playing Conkers Bad Fur Day but they might start using some very naughty words...
I think we all like games cos they are (on the whole) not politically correct at all. Blowing heads off shoulders, speeding through cities like a wild cat, spraying graffiti on vehicles (ala Jet Set Radio) - gameplay that breaks the rules is always the best. Long may it continue.
Those who wanna ban certain games cos they think they might somehow damage young and impressionable minds are nowt else but fruitcakes. Violence existed in the world long before video games were a twinkle in Atari's eye.
Those who wanna ban certain games cos they think they might somehow damage young and impressionable minds are nowt else but fruitcakes. Violence existed in the world long before video games were a twinkle in Atari's eye.
Well it would be nice if someone said somthing.
If it was crap please say.
If it was crap please say.
Interestingly to say politically correct is not politically correct!
Politically correct terms are thing like saying ìvertically challengedî instead of short, or ìcerebrally challengedî instead of stupid.
You get the idea. Now are games politically correct? The names are (in most cases) but the content is often not politically correct. Now as soon as you read that you will think that non politically correct games are games like shooting games. Well thatís not entirely true. If you know, Harry Potter books have been banned in several states in the USA because they have talk of ìevilî and ìwizardsî things that law abiding church goers should not even read about.
Yet itís made up. There is no real magic or Hogwarts. So why do people fuss? Well I believe its because they think that It could be a ìbadî influence on clildren. But moving back to games.
Now I know for a fact that a few options were removed from Perfect Dark because they were deemed too ìviolentî.
This was done mainly for the Americans (I believe) because there have been so many cases of children killing classmates and the parents believe this is caused by computer games. They then sue games manufacturers so the manufacturers have to then put high ratings (18) they can say there was warning on the game that it was not for children under that age. The only problem is people would argue that it wasnít visible so the only solution to that would be to plaster the 18 symbol all over the packaging and game.
Interestingly no one has yet thought of banning guns. Or if they have they have been stopped by the NRA (national rifle association) Who has tried suing the gun runners? Well the latter would be a bad idea I imagine. A terminally bad Idea.
Yet it is blamed on games. Parents say their kids become violent monsters when they play violent games . Now in some cases this may be true but when I play perfect dark I do so to relieve anger. It works. If I get bugged by something I stick 8 meat sims in and put one hit kills on and just go mad and shoot loads then feel much better. But other people are not neceserly like me.
Now this does, however, explain why Nintendo have put a great deal of money into games like Pokemon, Mario and Zelda. It would be very hard for people to find something offensive or violent in them. This means that if anyone tried to sue over a Pokemon game they would be very likely to lose.
Conkers Bad Fur day is another interesting game. Instead of keeping the furry squirrel image they made him a drunk womanizer. Now the game is rated 18 for obvious reasons but I canít imagine anyone going on a shooting spree after playing it.
So game manufactures get sued for having a shooting game in which you shoot people.
Thatís the problem. In Turok 2 you can blow holes in monsters but to my knowledge it is only a 15. PD got rated 18 because you shot people. Or at least characters recognizable as human (apart from the Skedar and Maians).
So if you made an incredibly violent game but only shot monster type things. I would be surprised if it got rated over 18.
So what is the point of rating?
Well I canít imagine it is done to stop younger children playing these games. I was 14 when I bought PD (my mum actually had to pay for it cos they wouldnít sell to me).
My 10 year old brother play it. Now the rating of 18 is for 2 reasons.
1. The blood and violence. Like an 18 rated movie.
2. The difficulty. I have done 3 levels on perfect Agent. I have done all on secret and agent but I just canít do most of them on perfect. Is this anything to do with the violence? No its to do with the way you think and your reflex speed. At 18 you are probably going to be much better at games because you can think how to do them more effectively.
Red Alert 1 was rated 18 or at least not for people under 18. I never managed to complete it on the easy setting. I think this is because it is designed for older people and the things you have to do are harder for younger children to work out. I completed Red Alert 2 on all settings as both allies and soviets. Now its rated 15 which is more appropriate for me.
I think it is possible that these rating are more accurate that we think.
So are shooting games morally or politically correct? Well the answer is no because you are shooting humans. Not real people though. Game characters. Bits of data, squares and polygons. None of the people are REAL. You have to be careful though that you donít translate the game reality into this reality.
So blaming societies problems on games is really a bit unfair. Game manufacturers are made into scape goats.
In the USA people say ìoh my son played this really bad game and when he got mad he went into school and shot a load of peopleî (not in those precise words).
Do they think ìwhy donít we get rid of the guns?î. No, instead everyone else is blamed.
In my opinion the only difference games have made on society has been to keep children inside more and for people to get fatter. But in England there is not much to go outside for. We have hardly any sun but a lot of rain and wind and cold temperatures.
But look on the bright side. We all get a lot of entertainment out of games and you can still be healthy and play games. You just need to go outside when you arenít playing.
Anyway, as always, thank you for reading.
Politically correct terms are thing like saying ìvertically challengedî instead of short, or ìcerebrally challengedî instead of stupid.
You get the idea. Now are games politically correct? The names are (in most cases) but the content is often not politically correct. Now as soon as you read that you will think that non politically correct games are games like shooting games. Well thatís not entirely true. If you know, Harry Potter books have been banned in several states in the USA because they have talk of ìevilî and ìwizardsî things that law abiding church goers should not even read about.
Yet itís made up. There is no real magic or Hogwarts. So why do people fuss? Well I believe its because they think that It could be a ìbadî influence on clildren. But moving back to games.
Now I know for a fact that a few options were removed from Perfect Dark because they were deemed too ìviolentî.
This was done mainly for the Americans (I believe) because there have been so many cases of children killing classmates and the parents believe this is caused by computer games. They then sue games manufacturers so the manufacturers have to then put high ratings (18) they can say there was warning on the game that it was not for children under that age. The only problem is people would argue that it wasnít visible so the only solution to that would be to plaster the 18 symbol all over the packaging and game.
Interestingly no one has yet thought of banning guns. Or if they have they have been stopped by the NRA (national rifle association) Who has tried suing the gun runners? Well the latter would be a bad idea I imagine. A terminally bad Idea.
Yet it is blamed on games. Parents say their kids become violent monsters when they play violent games . Now in some cases this may be true but when I play perfect dark I do so to relieve anger. It works. If I get bugged by something I stick 8 meat sims in and put one hit kills on and just go mad and shoot loads then feel much better. But other people are not neceserly like me.
Now this does, however, explain why Nintendo have put a great deal of money into games like Pokemon, Mario and Zelda. It would be very hard for people to find something offensive or violent in them. This means that if anyone tried to sue over a Pokemon game they would be very likely to lose.
Conkers Bad Fur day is another interesting game. Instead of keeping the furry squirrel image they made him a drunk womanizer. Now the game is rated 18 for obvious reasons but I canít imagine anyone going on a shooting spree after playing it.
So game manufactures get sued for having a shooting game in which you shoot people.
Thatís the problem. In Turok 2 you can blow holes in monsters but to my knowledge it is only a 15. PD got rated 18 because you shot people. Or at least characters recognizable as human (apart from the Skedar and Maians).
So if you made an incredibly violent game but only shot monster type things. I would be surprised if it got rated over 18.
So what is the point of rating?
Well I canít imagine it is done to stop younger children playing these games. I was 14 when I bought PD (my mum actually had to pay for it cos they wouldnít sell to me).
My 10 year old brother play it. Now the rating of 18 is for 2 reasons.
1. The blood and violence. Like an 18 rated movie.
2. The difficulty. I have done 3 levels on perfect Agent. I have done all on secret and agent but I just canít do most of them on perfect. Is this anything to do with the violence? No its to do with the way you think and your reflex speed. At 18 you are probably going to be much better at games because you can think how to do them more effectively.
Red Alert 1 was rated 18 or at least not for people under 18. I never managed to complete it on the easy setting. I think this is because it is designed for older people and the things you have to do are harder for younger children to work out. I completed Red Alert 2 on all settings as both allies and soviets. Now its rated 15 which is more appropriate for me.
I think it is possible that these rating are more accurate that we think.
So are shooting games morally or politically correct? Well the answer is no because you are shooting humans. Not real people though. Game characters. Bits of data, squares and polygons. None of the people are REAL. You have to be careful though that you donít translate the game reality into this reality.
So blaming societies problems on games is really a bit unfair. Game manufacturers are made into scape goats.
In the USA people say ìoh my son played this really bad game and when he got mad he went into school and shot a load of peopleî (not in those precise words).
Do they think ìwhy donít we get rid of the guns?î. No, instead everyone else is blamed.
In my opinion the only difference games have made on society has been to keep children inside more and for people to get fatter. But in England there is not much to go outside for. We have hardly any sun but a lot of rain and wind and cold temperatures.
But look on the bright side. We all get a lot of entertainment out of games and you can still be healthy and play games. You just need to go outside when you arenít playing.
Anyway, as always, thank you for reading.